Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses ranking criteria (exact name match, keyword/semantic similarity, proximity, freshness), vertical tagging, and optional constraints. This is good behavioral transparency, though it doesn't mention auth or rate limits (which may not apply).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is reasonably concise and front-loaded: first sentence gives scope, then usage examples, then ranking details, then optional params. It could be slightly shorter, but each sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (cross-vertical, ranking, optional params), the description covers most essential aspects: scope, use cases, ranking, vertical tagging, constraints. Missing limit/offset details; however, the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Overall adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains query (required), lat/lng for proximity, city/state for constraints. However, it does not explain limit and offset parameters, which are important for pagination. Thus it partially compensates but leaves gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches across multiple Indian-American verticals, listing 10 verticals. It provides example broad queries and differentiates from per-vertical search tools (siblings like search_restaurants_by_text), establishing a distinct cross-vertical search purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Use for broad queries' and gives examples, guiding the agent to use this tool when a query spans multiple categories. While it doesn't explicitly say 'not for single vertical', the sibling tools imply that alternative. The guidance is clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.